J. Goldenberg

The Ontario Review Board held a restriction of liberty hearing after the hospital transferred the accused from a general forensic unit to a secure forensic unit following an elopement where he stole a car and drove erratically.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and the least restrictive option given the accused's impulsivity, substance use, and need for medication stabilization.

The Board also amended the disposition to remove the word 'General' from the location of detention, allowing the hospital discretion over the appropriate level of security.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for sexual assault in 2009, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for his annual disposition hearing.

The Board found that he continues to suffer from treatment-refractory schizophrenia, lacks insight into his illness, and remains a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board ordered that the accused continue to be detained on a General Forensic Unit at the hospital, with privileges up to living in the community in approved accommodation.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and uttering threats.

The accused, who suffers from schizophrenia, had a successful year living in the community with support, remaining medication compliant and abstaining from substances.

However, due to his fragile mental health and risk of rapid decompensation if non-compliant with medication, the Board accepted the joint submission to maintain a Detention Order on a General Forensic Unit, with privileges up to and including community living.

The Ontario Review Board held a Restriction of Liberty hearing after the accused, who had been living in the community under an approved accommodation, was returned to the hospital due to behavioural disturbances and substance use.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused all agreed that the return to the hospital was warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive decision available.

The Board accepted the evidence and confirmed the hospital's decision to detain the accused.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a release order.

The accused had been transferred from Quebec.

The hospital and the Crown recommended a Conditional Discharge with conditions, including a prohibition on cannabis use and an obligation to provide samples, which the accused opposed.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and that the substance prohibitions were necessary, granting the Conditional Discharge with the requested conditions.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for assault.

The accused, who is aging and frail, did not attend the hearing.

Based on the unanimous recommendation of the hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused's counsel, the Board found that the accused no longer represents a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for uttering threats, suffers from schizoaffective disorder and other mental health conditions.

Based on the hospital report and expert testimony, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to a risk of medication non-adherence, impulsivity, and a history of arson.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with the same terms and conditions.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for violent offences.

The accused had made significant progress over the past five years, remaining stable, medication-compliant, and substance-free while living in the community.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his history of violence and mental illness.

However, considering his progress, the Board ordered a conditional discharge as the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and struggling with recent cocaine use and housing instability, sought a continuation of her Conditional Discharge.

The hospital and the Attorney General supported this position.

The Board found that while the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety, her risk is primarily to herself and can be adequately managed in the community.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Conditional Discharge as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for armed robbery and related offences.

The hospital and the Crown jointly recommended a conditional discharge, noting the accused's progress, medication adherence, and transition to a less supervised setting, while maintaining that he remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation and ordered a conditional discharge, finding that public safety would not be compromised.

The hospital notified the Ontario Review Board that the accused's liberty had been restricted after he tested positive for cannabis and reported auditory hallucinations telling him to harm himself.

He was readmitted to the hospital from his community group home.

At the restriction of liberty hearing, all parties made a joint submission that the restriction was warranted.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate for public safety and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure.

The Ontario Review Board convened a hearing to review the hospital's decision to place the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for murder, in seclusion for more than seven days.

The accused had discontinued his medication, decompensated, and attempted to assault staff.

All parties agreed that the seclusion was warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available.

The Board accepted the joint position and found the restriction of liberty was justified.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on a charge of attempted murder after shooting a victim in the chest.

At the initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, all parties jointly recommended a detention order.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to schizophrenia and substance use disorder.

The Board ordered the accused detained at the General Forensic Service of Ontario Shores with specified privileges and prohibitions.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for an accused previously found unfit to stand trial on charges of breaking and entering and uttering threats.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended continued detention on a Secure Forensic Unit with discretion to transfer to a General Forensic Unit.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused remains unfit to stand trial and lacks insight into her illness.

Considering public safety, her mental condition, and reintegration needs, the Board ordered her continued detention on a Secure Forensic Unit with discretion to transfer.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty of an accused found not criminally responsible, who had been placed in seclusion at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and a history of violence, was placed in seclusion after his mental state decompensated and he refused medication.

The Board heard evidence from the treating psychiatrist that the seclusion remained necessary due to the accused's risk, though he was showing improvement after starting injectable medication.

The Board concluded that the restriction of liberty was justified, necessary, and the least onerous and least restrictive placement available.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review a significant restriction of liberty after the accused, who was found not criminally responsible, was placed in seclusion for over seven days.

The hospital presented evidence that the accused posed a constant risk to female staff and that seclusion was the only viable option until his medication was adjusted.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence without reservation, finding that the seclusion from November 11 to December 23, 2025, was warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to protect public safety.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and other offences.

The hospital, Crown, and accused jointly submitted that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and should remain detained.

The Board agreed, noting recent incidents of aggression and substance use, but modified the detention order to specify placement in a General Forensic Unit to reflect his current housing.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing to determine whether the accused, previously found unfit to stand trial on various charges, remained unfit.

Based on the hospital report and psychiatric testimony, the Board found that the accused's mental state had stabilized in a supervised community setting and that she now met the criteria for fitness to stand trial.

The Board ordered the accused returned to court for a fitness determination pursuant to section 672.48(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for weapons and breach offences.

The hospital and Crown recommended continued detention in a Secure Forensic Unit and the removal of community living privileges, citing the accused's impulsivity, aggression, and need for medication stability.

The Board ordered the accused's continued detention in the Secure Forensic Unit, granting the hospital discretion to transfer him to a General Forensic Unit when clinically appropriate, and removed the community living privilege as unrealistic for the coming year.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assaulting a peace officer, was detained at a forensic hospital with community living privileges.

Following a relapse involving alcohol and cannabis use, the hospital readmitted her, significantly restricting her liberties for over seven days.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

The Board agreed with the joint submission of the parties that the readmission was necessary, reasonable, and appropriate to treat the escalation in substance use, and that her five-week hospital stay was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition in the circumstances.